Simony

Before Google the Bible could be pretty confusing. Peter seemed to be a bedrock, a fixed point in the New Testament narrative. Your name will be Peter which means Rock. This of course means that he had another name before being renamed. Looks like it was Simon. So at various points we have references to a Simon Peter.

All a touch confusing, especially when a Simon Magus turns up in the narrative. Is this the same person or not. The text doesn’t tell you. Turns out there was another Simon, who was a miracle worker too – hence the Magus bit.

At one point it looks like Simon M is pretty interested in the new stuff Simon P is promoting – along with his sidekick Paul (previously Saul). Although it gets confusing even with Google – looks like a lot of what some people didn’t like about the views of Simon M were not a million miles away from the views of Paul.

Anyway, Simon M is interested in anything that would let him get ahead in the miracle working stakes, figuring he can make a living out of it. Simon P (and maybe Paul) explain to him that miraculous things can only be done pro bono. Its genuine concern for others that underpins the new healing they have been commissioned to bring into the world.

This leads to a stand-off in Rome between the Simons, with Nero adjudicating – as in the picture. Simon Magus demonstrates some of his magical powers by flying but whether cursed by Simon Peter or whatever comes crashing to earth and ends up stone dead.

Nero comes out of all this as the adult in the room when he gives an order for the body to be left in situ – for three days. He’s heard about this resurrection from the dead stuff and wants to make sure Simon M is properly dead before burying him.

Its clearly difficult to believe much of all this, other than to recognise many of the varying accounts are highly political with one side attempting to discredit the other. The bottom line though is the nascent Church makes Simony one of the first sins and one of the most egregious.

Simony? Selling the powers of the Church, essentially the power to heal, for money. We’d probably call it conflict of interest now.

It underpinned William Blake’s painting of the Simoniac Pope being dumped down into the deepest recesses of Hell which featured in an earlier post before being replaced by a less obscure image. But I did promise to come back and explain what it had been all about.

Having read David’s blog it difficult not to see parallels with the present day behaviour of people in influential positions who have sold out on concepts of morality or the whole purpose of medicine – to heal without being swayed by self interest. Although they have more sophisticated networks and are more shrewd about what they allow citizens to know eg info about drugs

And it led to reading a report just published as a Christmas treat by another Simon, (Wessely) for politicians and medical colleges and their members and their wider networks. People on the receiving end of his report won’t find it such a cracker.

In a long, me, me, me introduction Simon W suggests this nauseous sham should be a model for future reviews. Several unnamed people left during the review, it is heavily weighted by medics in an unnamed list .
Simon felt a need to state that the review is uninfluenced by politicians.

Apologies as usual for not providing a link here but it is available at:-

FINAL REPORT OF THE (so called)
INDEPENDANT REVIEW OF THE MENTAL HEALTH act 1983 DEC 2018

And in the meantime the pope preaches brotherly love looking down from on high in a medieval looking ceremony while the sisters continue to suffer cover ups of abuse; refusals to apologise for the brothers’ arrogant assumption that terminations of pregnancies is their decision .Horrendous abuses of power and massive wealth which could be put to better use. The whole performance has nothing to do with spirituality.
Come let us adore them – don’t think so.

BTW a funny story: I tried a quick Google search for “simony AND doctor OR medicine.” The only thing I got was an article by a conservative Christian about “Christian counselors” who charge professional fees. He denounced the clergy for not only giving their blessing to this setup, but increasingly outsourcing their pastoral duties to these creatures.

I found myself in sympathy even though I didn’t share the man’s beliefs. Especially when he explained that church workers could be “supported” but never “paid for services.” The economic support comes from the whole community, NOT from the one in need, and should never be a precondition to getting help. Well damn, I said, I guess the Apostle Paul was for SOCIALIZED MEDICINE! Oh, the heresy, the horror. Especially given the way “Christian” health systems here (Protestant and Catholic alike) routinely drag the poor into court and garnish their wages over delinquent medical bills.

As for the Christian Counselors, they have become quite common. Back in the day many used to frown on medication, preferring that you lean on the Lord for support. These days they are just as likely to refer you to a doctor to get some ADs or benzos as their more secular colleagues. And insurers will usually pay them as long as they have some credential like a social work degree, and don’t violate some vague “standard of care.” I would hate to think that’s why they have changed their tune, but hey … we are up to our necks in Simony over here.

Here’s a very thoughtful story by an evangelical pastor about why he took SSRI’s … and why he had to stop. As good a description of “Emotional Blunting” as ever I heard:

You just never know who is reading what…and how profound an effect it can have …

Use it whenever you want and how you want; Long ago I evaporated the academic vanity and live happier… I was inspired by an article by a generalist from Glasgow… Des Spenceen A comment of the BMJ on the book of Gotzche… @ttps://t.co/p31bJAg4pA

Peter Gøtzsche, chief of the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen, is a tough guy, happy to push over the apple cart of perceived wisdom right in front of the vendors, wearing an expression that seems to cry out, “Come and get me if you think you’re hard enough.” Like a Nordic police investigator, in his new book Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare he systematically sets out the case against the drug industry.⇑

I agree that in recent years there have been an increasing number of reports of withdrawal states after stopping SSRI antidepressants, particularly paroxetine. The risk of a withdrawal state is a good reason for recommending gradual withdrawal from these drugs, but not for alarm and certainly not for questioning their therapeutic value. I agree, though, that the existence of these withdrawal states, although they do not at present seem significantly different from those associated with the old tricyclic drugs, is good reason for keeping a careful watch for dosage escalation, the development of a black market and other possible evidence of patients developing dependence. So ,far, though, I am not aware of any evidence of this.

I also agree that for some reason Paroxetine is more likely than the other SSRIs to produce problems. This may be related to its relatively short half life. In summary, therefore, I would state that there is a withdrawal reaction but this is not indicative of a central dependent state as in the true drugs of addiction.